Rayvin

Agreed - makes me wonder which other Brexit style horrors lie in wait though.

You have a much less optimistic outlook than I do, but I can see your point.

Which is why it's so important for the establishment to agree to the negotiated climbdown rather than to resist. It can be done calmly and with one eye on a better tomorrow. Rather than with rage and frustration. And to be clear, I'm not saying that they dismantle everything I'm saying they need to rewrite some of the rules so that the success of our civilisation is shared more equally.

I agree that this is a possible. Then again, look at the rise of the right wing in Europe. Change does appear to be upon us.

Not to commit the unholy sin of a treble post willingly, but just to add to this, the other thing that appalls me is that the 'establishment' have been quite prepared to throw everyone else under the bus on this front. Immigrants have become the focal point for the anger many people have at the failings of a system that is actually foisted on us by chasing profits and maximising wealth in the hands of those who already have it. Added in with all the divisive identity politics drivel that they give us as 'meaningful political change and progress' and serves only to distract from actual social progress, and I think it's fair to consider them to be at the root of many of society's problems. Thus it's ok for me to talk about them I'll reign it in a bit though. I've actually been trying to anyway but it's so hard to resist being pulled back

Short term that's probably true - and certainly what we appear to be seeing over here post-Brexit, but I think there's a longer game at play here if I'm honest. I fully accept I could be wrong about all of this, and we'll just settle back down into the warm embrace of the Neoliberal centreground again. Doesn't seem likely, but hey, it's possible.

I'll never get to run for politics based on my posts in here, will I? I'm not strictly anti-establishment though. My concern is more that if we don't start seeing improvements in the lives of the people being left behind, and that we know that this number is increasing (thanks to the IFS and other sources), that logically, we're heading towards a place where the status quo cannot be perpetuated. That being the case, I would rather we had a negotiated climbdown rather than something drastic. The drastic action will be infinitely worse than Trump or Brexit. I was quite happy with the establishment, relatively speaking - minus the wars and so on - until it delivered us Brexit. And while there are many factors at play there, it's pointless to stick our heads in the sand and say that 1) the people being left behind don't have a legitimate grievance and 2) refuse to acknowledge that there's a lot fucking more of them than we thought, and that this isn't unique to the UK. I'm furious that we've been delivered to this point, that I was complicit in it, and that the intransigence of 'the elites' is delivering economic hardship for all of us, as they try to resist what is happening.

I think it's quite possible that he could win you know... The Republican donors have clearly sensed blood as they're now throwing money at him hand over fist for the final few days of advertising. The problem with Trump, for me, is that he's a fantastic statement to the establishment on the day he gets elected, and thereafter is a problem and a liability with no solid policies and little ability or desire to actually make any difference. What we should have had is someone equally loathed by the establishment, but who could make a decent fist of it. Which is why I continue to stick with Corbyn, for better or worse. I've said a few times, I'd far rather we get change and reconstruction of the political climate by the left than the right. It'll be the right in the end though, it always seems to be. As for Hillary, she'd just keep things ticking over, but the status quo is, as you say, disenfranchising people. How long does that go on before someone radical comes in to fix it? Unless the establishment can somehow put the genie back in the bottle again. And maybe they can, they've probably done it in the past. Still though, with their usual mouthpieces in traditional media losing influence, I think they've been caught cold this time around. If we get Trump, and Brexit, and it causes a rethink in how politics is set up, and in terms of who it is meant to serve, I reckon it'll save us a lot of grief further down the line.

Well put. And yes, I can see the sense in that argument. The thing is, I don't think any single one action is going to bring about the change we need - but lots of them might. And I think my general concern is more that if we don't get the change with these relatively tame developments, we might see less tame developments in the future. The Establishment has to lose this fight, IMO. It simply hasn't brought enough people with it to win. Maybe I'm wrong, but Brexit suggests otherwise.

Gemmill just saunters in and neuters the angst throughout the thread with one line. You can't learn that kind of forum management

Not quite sure what you mean by this comment? You mean you think we'd do better working within the established frameworks?

Aye, I've rewatched it now and he is so unbelievably right about this. Totally captures my viewpoint on it.

I'm not surprised at all by that based on what I'm reading. Unfortunately his message isn't going to get through to people who prefer their politics to be more straightforward.

Yeah it's a weird one that. Initially it looked like he was resigning over the court judgement but it actually looks like it's in response to something that government is apparently trying to do in response. Which suggests he might even be principled?

For a horrifying moment, I thought they were going to do it...

This fucking thread...

Why don't you give the True Geordie a call, he does podcasts now apparently. Seems to have several hundred thousand viewers per video, sure he'd be happy to help you out

That makes sense. If attacks on the West are a recruiting tool to get more people to buy into the ideology, then attacking bigger countries with larger Muslim populations would make sense, and wouldn't necessarily suggest an ulterior political motive. Very believable but hard to support, isn't it? Either way, surely either side of this argument makes it clear that we shouldn't be meddling in these countries, and that we'd experience fewer attacks if we weren't? Both Gloom and HF's posts support that point.

Ok sorry, but could someone address HF's Iceland point with something other than sniping? I'm keen to hear the response. And FWIW I agree with you guys that religion is the primary motivator, but I'm becoming less and less convinced with every post that goes by ducking his question. Why don't they attack Iceland? Have they ever attacked anyone against whom they had no tangible political motive? None of this changes the fact that they are religiously motivated, but it does suggest that we could avoid being targets by acting like Iceland does, surely?

I agree actually, that's a particularly strong headline. What's with the 'GIANT map of Britain' as well. Is that just to reinforce the point somehow?

The Fish has now been schooled.

"Today this country faces a crisis as grave as when Churchill vowed we'd fight them on the beaches" Right wing tabloids are the worst